Jim Devine wrote: > Ajit writes: >I still don't understand what an "abstract human nature" > could mean.< > > I can't help it if you can't understand what I said before. > > But put it in a different way: just as Marx talks about "abstract labor" by > abstracting from all of the particular characteristics of the various > concrete labors (skill levels, the product produced, etc.), abstract human > nature can be sketched by abstracting from the particular characteristics > of the perceived concrete human natures -- i.e., the people we see in > various places and times, of both genders and all ethnic groups, etc. > "Human nature" (HN), as I said before, is the constant in the welter of > various human characters. > > Some things that seem constant amongst people are much of the human body, > the human mind (e.g., Chomsky's universal grammar), and the way in which > people are societal creatures. It seems best to define HN relative to the > beasts. But given your apparent method of universal and indiscriminate > skepticism, I don't see any point in getting into a deeper discussion of this. __________________ Of course people like myself are utterly incapable of getting into "deeper discussion" on such abstract subjects with you sir! But still, I remain unconvienced even at the superfecial level. Though the meaning of "abstract labor" in Marx is debatable, when it comes to giving it some content he identifies it with expenditure of physical and mental energy; i.e. Marx's "abstract labour" is not empty of all content. What is the content of your "abstract human nature", that is my question. Now, as far as I understand it, and I could be quite wrong here, that Chomsky's idea of "universal gramer" or human's ability of language could be understood in a similar fashion as human's ability to stand up and walk erect after certain age. Now, is that what "human nature" is for you? If so, how does this help you in making "sense" of the "dialectic of history"? I leave the rest of your post without comment on purpose, i.e. it got too deep for me to handle. Cheers, ajit sinha
